Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3899
|
Posted - 2013.12.22 11:00:00 -
[121] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:There is no player created option to use stealthy, skill, intelligence or ruse, its purely turn up at X time and bring as many people as you can. There can be no argument that the players create any content in sov warfare, they run the content that has been created.
You heard it here everyone, it's impossible to get sov without a blob. Your spies are useless. This user won the forums on 18/09/2013, then lost on 18/12/2013. |
Louis Robichaud
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
81
|
Posted - 2013.12.22 16:52:00 -
[122] - Quote
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:Louis Robichaud wrote:Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote: To which I say: Wrong, dude. You're wrong. No amount of easing the NPE (New Player Experience) will beat the handicap of EVE's core design: EVE is about player driven content, and that content consists of killing players until they leave. So the real NPE would be like spawning the new players in a permacamped 0.0 system and tell them to make it to the other side of a gate leading to hisec.
That would be a 100% accurate, true, EVE new player experience. Of course, also would scare away 99.99% of the actual new players.
.
Erm, I'm not sure I agree that the content of EVE consist of killings players (PLAYERS?!? surely you mean spaceships) until the players leave. I do agree that there is something to what you say, but a lot of people play *without* the goal of driving other people to quit. I blow up Blue Republic spaceships all the time. I certainly don't want those players to quit, I want them to stick around so I can explode their ships some more (and they return the favor). Even when RvB goes purple and unites vs a 3rd party, I want us to win, but I have no interest in seeing the players quit. There is an ugly minority who's main goal in the game is to get tears. It's a problem. We can't talk about that problem however, as they tend to be quite talented trolls, and any attempt to discuss the issue turns into a "HTFU" and "where did the bad guy touch you?" silly fest. I love that EVE is a dark, dangerous place where explosions and betrayals abound. But we don't need griefers for that to happen. Sure the game is hard and it's difficult to get into it. But some of those people driven away by the reputation (or actions) of this ugly minority could have turned out to be great players and content creators themselves, had they been given a chance to get the hang of things. You wil shoot blue republic until one day you no longer see the fun in shooting blue republic. Then you will leave. Of course if you were losing regurlary, you would leave way sooner. This is why PvP based games always die; they need a continuous stream of losers who still haven't lost enough times to leave the game. For each winner, there is at least a loser, and people don't play games were they lose (shocking, eh?). In EVE, they boast about how hard it is to lose, and so they boast about how effectively they lose subscribers. The only way that this can be balanced, is by drawing in new blood, and that's exactly what EVE is not doing, and CCP can't afford to do it without neglecting the existing playerbase. Alts and multiboxers are setting up the stage for catastrophic drops in subscriber count. In a healthy game, you lose one player and lose one subscription; but in EVE losing a player increasingly means losing two, three, four or God knows how many subscriptions. Make a single wrong turn, anger a single demographic, and you will lose N customers and N xY accounts.
When I find RvB no longer fun (this might be in 6 months, might be in 5 years, who knows) I will leave... RvB. Doesn't mean I have to leave EVE though. I could join a wormhole corp. I could try teaching at EVE university. Maybe faction warfare. Etc etc. As long as EVE has multiple ways of playing it's not so simple as "I'm not winning, I'm quitting". In reality in EVE people win some and lose some and that's ok. I think it's simplistic to say that players need constant victory to stay satisfied. Of course, some people can make sure they are winning more by picking on newbies and well, we are back to my original point...
As an aside - I think a lot of EVE player are driven to *achieve*, and achievement isn't always blowing someone up. The thing that draw me to EVE first wasn't the PvP btw, it was the economy...
That being said - yes I do agree with you that CCP has to draw in new players *and* keep the existing player base happy. I also agree with you that the "each player has X subscription" model does leave CCP more vulnerable to player loss.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5345
|
Posted - 2013.12.22 17:15:00 -
[123] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:There is no player created option to use stealthy, skill, intelligence or ruse, its purely turn up at X time and bring as many people as you can. There can be no argument that the players create any content in sov warfare, they run the content that has been created. You heard it here everyone, it's impossible to get sov without a blob. Your spies are useless. Heh. Sov drops would make TMC headlines There are no goons. The goons; 0.0 dream is over.
Progodlegend said the goal of N3 is to destroy Goonswarm Federation, but in reality NCdot is in Fountain due to the fact it is virtually the last place there is action. ~NC., Fountain 2013 |
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
2824
|
Posted - 2013.12.23 07:54:00 -
[124] - Quote
Louis Robichaud wrote: When I find RvB no longer fun (this might be in 6 months, might be in 5 years, who knows) I will leave... RvB. Doesn't mean I have to leave EVE though. I could join a wormhole corp. I could try teaching at EVE university. Maybe faction warfare. Etc etc. As long as EVE has multiple ways of playing it's not so simple as "I'm not winning, I'm quitting". In reality in EVE people win some and lose some and that's ok. I think it's simplistic to say that players need constant victory to stay satisfied. Of course, some people can make sure they are winning more by picking on newbies and well, we are back to my original point...
As an aside - I think a lot of EVE player are driven to *achieve*, and achievement isn't always blowing someone up. The thing that draw me to EVE first wasn't the PvP btw, it was the economy...
That being said - yes I do agree with you that CCP has to draw in new players *and* keep the existing player base happy. I also agree with you that the "each player has X subscription" model does leave CCP more vulnerable to player loss.
Of coruse achievement is relevant to stay subscribed, and as with "meaningful" the definition of "achievement" varies from a player to the next. One of the beauties of a sandbox system is that, theoretically, it allows the player to set whatever achievement he wants to reach, and pursue it through the rules and mechanics of the sandbox.
But then, in order to set a viable achievement, the player must KNOW the sandbox rules and mechanics. And being a sandbox, it can be very diffcult to figure them, specially if the sandbox is as obscure as EVE, where most relevant information is not documented anywhere. FAI, just these days, we see players learning the hard way that setting drones to aggressive is bad for them... but this little fact is not documented anywhere ingame, and neither the game nor CCP do nothing to prevent players abusing the drone loophole to the supposed "safety button", nor to warn unaware players of the consequences of this default setting.
It is just one of the ways in which learning the snadbox is left to chance and randomness, and so players are left to find out too late that they pursued the wrong achievement... which may be fatal if they spent months on it and didn't like anything else.
Making sure that the NPE leads the players to worthy achievements (let's say that being a competent mission runner was something better than just being a hapless farmer) is a delicate matter. Leading players to an achievement means drawing paths on the sandbox, but on the other hand, EVE as is is a game where someone can become a competent PvEr and learn, one year too late, that aggressive drones can spell doom on his hard earned achievement ship (hard earned because of the dullness of the farming implied).
And such degree of failure is not balanced out by some equally large reward. You chewed up rocks for hours and hours and took 1 minute to learn horribly that you should fit your ship X way or do Z thing in order to keep enjoying the achievement reward of... chewing more rocks. The Greater Fool Bar is now open for business, 24/7. Come and have drinks and fun somewhere between RL and New Eden! |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1240
|
Posted - 2013.12.28 05:41:00 -
[125] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Improving NPE doesn't necessitate abandoning the core principles of the game. And everyone going out of their way to be socially interactive isn't and doesn't need to be one of those principles since like it or not the players are all interactinng through the actual game mechanics.
So again, so long as a player is willing to play within the rules, including the limits of their chosen interactions, I can't really see them as bad.
NPE is fine now, it is impossible to teach new players everything and you cannot teach them anything about pvp with NPCs. The simple fact is that a lot of people who play MMOs simply cannot handle losing, risk, thinking for yourself and not having instant gratification. Not true. You can teach them about scrambling, webbifying, manual piloting, pretty much everything PvP mechanics wise with NPC's.
Why don't they learn that.. Cause CCP's idea of NPC combat and AI is:
NPC (detect player in radius) NPC (fly towards player while shooting) NPC (Orbit Player & Racial ECM randomly)
I'm sure there were better AI in the old Sega systems of the late 80's.
If they reduced the stupid number of npcs, added a requirement to web, scram, neut, ecm, disrupt, watch transversal and started people off fitting their ships for pve much like we do for pvp things might not be so scary for people not used to pvp.
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
7641
|
Posted - 2013.12.28 05:47:00 -
[126] - Quote
You do realize, I hope, that the more complex AI becomes the more calculations the server has to do? Latest video - Pandemic Legion titan and supers killed |
Katrina Oniseki
Revenent Defence Corperation Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
2797
|
Posted - 2013.12.28 06:09:00 -
[127] - Quote
I would vote for a reduction in NPC quantity in PvE, and an increase in their capability. NPC ships should be almost as dangerous as their player counterparts. Imagine a nullsec Serpentis battleship rat (alone) that can pump out close to or over 1000 DPS on its own, with an EHP pool around 100k, and includes full tackle.
It's not such a good idea to go up against it in a drake anymore, is it?
Getting into a brawl with a rat should be a dangerous affair, though obviously more predictable than with a player. Ratting should not require a non-PvP fit. PvE should require the same tactics as PvP to survive and thrive, and should be designed to be more of a 'training ground' for players to get used to proper fitting and flying.
Going from killing that above mentioned rat to fighting a player in a Megathron with the same 'ratting' ship wouldn't be such a laughable prospect.
Imagine level 4 missions actually requiring a fleet to run again, because they would be (alongside Wormholes and Incursions) the only place where larger numbers of rats would be found together. All other places would see a decrease in quantity and this massive improvement in rat quality. Ch+½j+ì Katrina Oniseki ~ (RDC) Chief Operations Officer ~ [I-RED] Director of Public Relations |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1240
|
Posted - 2013.12.28 06:09:00 -
[128] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:You do realize, I hope, that the more complex AI becomes the more calculations the server has to do? Really irrelevant to PvE. If instead of 4 rooms with 50 npcs in each room that orbit at 2, 15, 30 and 50km and shoot + randomly use ecm jammers there were 4 rooms with 5 npcs in each room that engaged like an actual pvp gang, tacklers using generic long range orbits, long points, or close orbits, scrams and webs. Long range "falcon" jammer, and mid range, long range or short range dps, RR etc.
EVE pvp is not exactly rocket science. |
Katrina Oniseki
Revenent Defence Corperation Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
2797
|
Posted - 2013.12.28 06:12:00 -
[129] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:You do realize, I hope, that the more complex AI becomes the more calculations the server has to do?
Yup. The AI complexity already exists in EVE. The rat 'ships' simply need to have better tools at its disposal (which also already exist), and vastly improved stats.
Doing all that while reducing the number of actual rats so PvE isn't overwhelmingly difficult would (I assume) actually decrease server load. Ch+½j+ì Katrina Oniseki ~ (RDC) Chief Operations Officer ~ [I-RED] Director of Public Relations |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
2119
|
Posted - 2013.12.28 06:15:00 -
[130] - Quote
yeah i remember a dev saying something along the lines of 'having rats in pve act more like players is a goal'
also having pve fits the same as pvp fits would be a lot better. not having to warp out -every time- something appears on dscan and having the capability of fighting for the site would be great |
|
Katrina Oniseki
Revenent Defence Corperation Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive
2797
|
Posted - 2013.12.28 06:22:00 -
[131] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote:yeah i remember a dev saying something along the lines of 'having rats in pve act more like players is a goal'
also having pve fits the same as pvp fits would be a lot better. not having to warp out -every time- something appears on dscan and having the capability of fighting for the site would be great
On the other hand, when already struggling with a pissed off NPC vindicator... I'd not be too encouraged to see a player show up too. Ch+½j+ì Katrina Oniseki ~ (RDC) Chief Operations Officer ~ [I-RED] Director of Public Relations |
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
3151
|
Posted - 2013.12.28 09:27:00 -
[132] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:baltec1 wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Improving NPE doesn't necessitate abandoning the core principles of the game. And everyone going out of their way to be socially interactive isn't and doesn't need to be one of those principles since like it or not the players are all interactinng through the actual game mechanics.
So again, so long as a player is willing to play within the rules, including the limits of their chosen interactions, I can't really see them as bad.
NPE is fine now, it is impossible to teach new players everything and you cannot teach them anything about pvp with NPCs. The simple fact is that a lot of people who play MMOs simply cannot handle losing, risk, thinking for yourself and not having instant gratification. Not true. You can teach them about scrambling, webbifying, manual piloting, pretty much everything PvP mechanics wise with NPC's. Why don't they learn that.. Cause CCP's idea of NPC combat and AI is: NPC (detect player in radius) NPC (fly towards player while shooting) NPC (Orbit Player & Racial ECM randomly) I'm sure there were better AI in the old Sega systems of the late 80's. If they reduced the stupid number of npcs, added a requirement to web, scram, neut, ecm, disrupt, watch transversal and started people off fitting their ships for pve much like we do for pvp things might not be so scary for people not used to pvp.
All that is nice and dandy... but let's remember that people is PLEXing their accounts with mission farming.
Any sensible company in the known universe and part of the wormholes, would develop a new type of mission that was exactly as you described -hell, even *I* suggested that at one point.
But this is CCP what we are talking about, and your idea would mean the end of PvE as we know it, the waste of tirllions of ISK in PvE player assets, the end of countless subscriptions, and a severe blow to the game demographics.
Having TWO different PvE systems, is just too sensible for CCP.
In my view, a Chris Roberts, a Sid Meier, a Shigeru Miyamoto, anyone with a functional developer mind, or even a EA developer, would take the chance to make the "deadly PvE" missions player-generated and shoot two birds with a stone or however is said in English; let players create new PvE content and let that new PvE be a stepping stone for PvP, win-win!
But again, this is CCP, an amateurish gang of icelandic freaks, and you can bet your shiny new Marauder that they plan on wipping PvE fits out of the table via a AI change that will make the new anti-drone AI look sensible and balanced. The Greater Fool Bar is now open for business, 24/7. Come and have drinks and fun somewhere between RL and New Eden! |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
7780
|
Posted - 2013.12.28 09:28:00 -
[133] - Quote
Katrina Oniseki wrote:Benny Ohu wrote:yeah i remember a dev saying something along the lines of 'having rats in pve act more like players is a goal'
also having pve fits the same as pvp fits would be a lot better. not having to warp out -every time- something appears on dscan and having the capability of fighting for the site would be great On the other hand, when already struggling with a pissed off NPC vindicator... I'd not be too encouraged to see a player show up too. Good point. I'm starting to like this idea less and less now. Latest video - Pandemic Legion titan and supers killed |
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
3151
|
Posted - 2013.12.28 09:53:00 -
[134] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Katrina Oniseki wrote:Benny Ohu wrote:yeah i remember a dev saying something along the lines of 'having rats in pve act more like players is a goal'
also having pve fits the same as pvp fits would be a lot better. not having to warp out -every time- something appears on dscan and having the capability of fighting for the site would be great On the other hand, when already struggling with a pissed off NPC vindicator... I'd not be too encouraged to see a player show up too. Good point. I'm starting to like this idea less and less now.
It's so nice that I already started figuring that out...
Option A: CONCORD spawns in deadspace and beats the living sh*t of any ships not a part of the mission Option B: any player entering deadspace after the initial player gets full room aggro
I'd rather pick option A, because option B could be abused to keep the NPCs busy with a bait while a DPS boat kills them. The Greater Fool Bar is now open for business, 24/7. Come and have drinks and fun somewhere between RL and New Eden! |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
7783
|
Posted - 2013.12.28 09:54:00 -
[135] - Quote
You can't be serious... Latest video - Pandemic Legion titan and supers killed |
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
3151
|
Posted - 2013.12.28 10:05:00 -
[136] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:You can't be serious...
Why shouldn't I? If the missions were key to third parties (the players being affected by the outcome), such third parties should be protected by a game mechanic.
The player whose interest could be harmed by a succesful mission would wish to be assured that nobody would blob the NPCs, and the player whose interest could be harmed by a failed mission would wish to be assured that nobody would blob the mission runner.
Third party player stakes would allow for third party NPC intervention as a check & balance system. The Greater Fool Bar is now open for business, 24/7. Come and have drinks and fun somewhere between RL and New Eden! |
Lugalbandak
Anunnaku Warfare Corp.
385
|
Posted - 2013.12.28 11:07:00 -
[137] - Quote
wy ppl still say dust is dead? there is a good community overthere , tey might even haz more fun as us The police horse is the only animal in the world that haz his male genitals on his back |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1242
|
Posted - 2013.12.28 11:34:00 -
[138] - Quote
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Katrina Oniseki wrote:Benny Ohu wrote:yeah i remember a dev saying something along the lines of 'having rats in pve act more like players is a goal'
also having pve fits the same as pvp fits would be a lot better. not having to warp out -every time- something appears on dscan and having the capability of fighting for the site would be great On the other hand, when already struggling with a pissed off NPC vindicator... I'd not be too encouraged to see a player show up too. Good point. I'm starting to like this idea less and less now. It's so nice that I already started figuring that out... Option A: CONCORD spawns in deadspace and beats the living sh*t of any ships not a part of the mission Option B: any player entering deadspace after the initial player gets full room aggro I'd rather pick option A, because option B could be abused to keep the NPCs busy with a bait while a DPS boat kills them. Option B is fine I think. If two players can sneak up on me in a mission and one is a bait other is dps then I think that's just fail on my part. Of course I could have cloaky partner or could be bait myself, NPC's switch, scram, jam, web the bait, my guys uncloak blap dps blap bait, profit.
Sounds very EvEil. |
March rabbit
True Horde
1160
|
Posted - 2013.12.28 12:01:00 -
[139] - Quote
EI Digin wrote:When I play a game, the only thing that matters to me is how much money the developers make. when you get older you will see much bigger picture, kid The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
7892
|
Posted - 2013.12.28 13:38:00 -
[140] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:EI Digin wrote:When I play a game, the only thing that matters to me is how much money the developers make. when you get older you will see much bigger picture, kid When you get older you'll learn what sarcasm is. Latest video - Pandemic Legion titan and supers killed |
|
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
2169
|
Posted - 2013.12.28 13:42:00 -
[141] - Quote
Katrina Oniseki wrote:Benny Ohu wrote:yeah i remember a dev saying something along the lines of 'having rats in pve act more like players is a goal'
also having pve fits the same as pvp fits would be a lot better. not having to warp out -every time- something appears on dscan and having the capability of fighting for the site would be great On the other hand, when already struggling with a pissed off NPC vindicator... I'd not be too encouraged to see a player show up too. the current situation is 'see someone on scan, warp out'
the one you're suggesting is 'having trouble with npcs, see someone on scan, warp out'
this leaves room for 'doing pve, see someone on scan, get ready to kick some git's arse out of here' were you not having trouble with the npcs
besides that, 'having pve rats act more like players' and 'allowing players to use pvp fits in pve' doesn't need to mean pve is as difficult as fighting a player. hopefully, it'd just be a lot more interesting and open up some more room for emergent gameplay |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
7892
|
Posted - 2013.12.28 13:51:00 -
[142] - Quote
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:You can't be serious... Why shouldn't I? If the missions were key to third parties (the players being affected by the outcome), such third parties should be protected by a game mechanic. The player whose interest could be harmed by a succesful mission would wish to be assured that nobody would blob the NPCs, and the player whose interest could be harmed by a failed mission would wish to be assured that nobody would blob the mission runner. Third party player stakes would allow for third party NPC intervention as a check & balance system. Why shouldn't I be allowed to interfere? Do you not understand what a sandbox is? Latest video - Pandemic Legion titan and supers killed |
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
3153
|
Posted - 2013.12.28 14:15:00 -
[143] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:You can't be serious... Why shouldn't I? If the missions were key to third parties (the players being affected by the outcome), such third parties should be protected by a game mechanic. The player whose interest could be harmed by a succesful mission would wish to be assured that nobody would blob the NPCs, and the player whose interest could be harmed by a failed mission would wish to be assured that nobody would blob the mission runner. Third party player stakes would allow for third party NPC intervention as a check & balance system. Why shouldn't I be allowed to interfere? Do you not understand what a sandbox is?
Oh, but you can interfere. You can lose all the ships you want to CONCORD, as in any other place of the game. The Greater Fool Bar is now open for business, 24/7. Come and have drinks and fun somewhere between RL and New Eden! |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
7892
|
Posted - 2013.12.28 14:23:00 -
[144] - Quote
Why do you demand CONCORD protection be extended to simple interference with PVE? Latest video - Pandemic Legion titan and supers killed |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
2169
|
Posted - 2013.12.28 14:25:00 -
[145] - Quote
i agree
also, when someone undercuts my sell order, they should be concorded. |
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
3153
|
Posted - 2013.12.28 14:29:00 -
[146] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Why do you demand CONCORD protection be extended to simple interference with PVE?
Re-read what i wrote. It's player generated PvE which affects other players else than the mission runner and the wannabe gankers. CONCORD is a NPC third party that protects the interests of the player third parties affected by the mission.
A player shall win and another shall lose depending on how the mission turns, but they don't have any control on the mission as it's been delivered anonymously to a unknown misison runner. Why should they be affected by a win earned through cheating (mission runner brings a blob) or a miss caused by ganking? The Greater Fool Bar is now open for business, 24/7. Come and have drinks and fun somewhere between RL and New Eden! |
Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility Casoff
2169
|
Posted - 2013.12.28 16:01:00 -
[147] - Quote
if the idea hinges on deliberately restricting emergent gameplay to such an extent, it's a bad idea |
EI Digin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1629
|
Posted - 2013.12.28 17:56:00 -
[148] - Quote
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:All that is nice and dandy... but let's remember that people is PLEXing their accounts with mission farming.
Please don't tell me that you think people who farm missions for PLEX are entitled to that PLEX every month.
Because we all know people of all types would be picking up the slack.
|
Captain Tardbar
Sons of Sam
1101
|
Posted - 2013.12.28 20:32:00 -
[149] - Quote
I don't know.
I have a feeling that CCP is only successful is because they are the only game in their niche.
The certainly have no part in helping new players for example.
All it will take is one game that is slightly better to be ruined.
And making spinoffs that are failures like Dust doesn't help the situation.
Maybe Valkyrie will be more successful though.
I mean the Oculus Rift is amazing and any product that works with it has that going for it.
Anyways...
I don't really care either way other than I like to see the EVE player base cry tears when they are continually abused by a company. "Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby". If you fantasize about being immoral it means you enjoy being immoral deep down. Captain Tardbar: The official grumpy cat of General Discussion. |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
1273
|
Posted - 2014.01.01 23:40:00 -
[150] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:I don't know.
I have a feeling that CCP is only successful is because they are the only game in their niche.
The certainly have no part in helping new players for example.
All it will take is one game that is slightly better to be ruined.
And making spinoffs that are failures like Dust doesn't help the situation.
Maybe Valkyrie will be more successful though.
I mean the Oculus Rift is amazing and any product that works with it has that going for it.
Anyways...
I don't really care either way other than I like to see the EVE player base cry tears when they are continually abused by a company. I think you're correct. EVE is a fantastic game imo but CCP is amateurish, nepotist, and ignorant of its main playerbase. They've had a good run because there hasnt been a competitor but like you said when that changes the 80% of its customers it ignores might decide they're tired of being 2nd class subscribers. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |